PERMFILE49068 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Grand River Park Project, M-2006-046 Response to Adequacy Letter of August 1, 2006 6 September 2006 Page 19 This comment presents no reason for the applicant to re-evaluate its reclamation cost estimate in Exhibit L. By utilizing concurrent reclamation techniques and other best practices, the applicant is able to avoid costly bonding contingencies. 27. Rule 6.4.13 requires the applicant to list other permits, licenses and approvals the Applicant holds or will be seeking in order to conduct the proposed mining and reclamation operation. Exhibit M, as submitted, lists multiple types of permits and approvals that are required for the project but does not indicate whether the applicant has applied for or obtained them. Of particular concern to the Division are the storm water permit, gravel pit/well permit, substitute water supply plan, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 and/or Nationwide permit. Please resubmit this exhibit indicating the status for each permit or approval listed in this exhibit. The applicant's submittal of Exhibit M complies with Rule 6.4.13. Rule 6.4.13 is stated as a disjunctive (e.g., "approvals the Operator holds or will be seeking") specifically because the status of other prospective approvals is irrelevant for the purposes of Reclamation Permit review. As the Division has noted in the past, it is the applicant's duty to commit to complying with all other applicable permits and regulatory requirements, and Rule 6.4.13 ensures that the applicant identifies which other permits and licenses "may apply." The exercise is prospective in nature and the Division, in accordance with C.R.S. § 34-32.5- 115(4)(c), may find an application inadequate only if there is a "scenario under which the proposed operation will be absolutely prohibited by local and other laws and regulations." No such scenario is presented by the other permits applicable to the present proposal, as evidenced by the statement provided in Exhibit M. As instructed by C.R.S. § 34-32.5-104, "The office is responsible for the enforcement of reclamation permits only and has no authority or duty to enforce other local, state, or federal agency permits unless otherwise authorized by law." Therefore, the applicant willingly acknowledges the conditions of, for example, review by the Office of the State Engineer, but does not believe such an acknowledgment or the inclusion of a permit in the Rule 6.4.13 statement constitutes an enforceable component of the Reclamation Permit. In fact, the temporary substitute supply plan is not included in the enumerated list of permits for which the applicant is required to provide a statement under Rule 6.4.13. The following status list for other permits is provided in the interest of full disclosure; however, the applicant objects to the contents of this update having any role in the Division's adequacy determination. The M-2006-046 permit application has already established compliance with the requirements of Rule 6.4.13.